Honestly, a person with true faith in God (or whatever) would believe that we just have to trust in Him/Her/It. God's will cannot be understood by human beings; we must act on the belief that, no matter what happens, it is what should happen.

Eh...No offence intended, but that looks less like an honest answer than an attempt to dismiss the argument...

Quote:

If you think only good things happen to good people, you need to go read the Book of Job again. The fact is, everyone has trials in life, and people do get killed.

That doesn't really answer the point that was raised. If God could prevent disasters and still lets them happen (and I'm not talking about human actions, that might require for him to violate free will in order to prevent - I'm talking about stuff like the tsunami or smallpox), or even possibly causes them, then wouldn't that reflect poorly on his morality?

Honestly, a person with true faith in God (or whatever) would believe that we just have to trust in Him/Her/It. God's will cannot be understood by human beings; we must act on the belief that, no matter what happens, it is what should happen.

Eh...No offence intended, but that looks less like an honest answer than an attempt to dismiss the argument...

None taken.

In a way, though, it's both. For a person possessing "true faith," it really isn't a question of whether or not they "love God." It's something else entirely. Once they "know" and have faith in God, it's about trusting that whatever happens must happen.

Of course, I'm looking at this from something of a Taoist perspective, not a Christian, or, for that matter, Western one.

Are you speaking of it in the literal meaning, or the general meaning?
The word means using the dead for divining, roughly. In that case, technically I wouldn't think it's a religion, because souls of the dead are hard to come by nowadays.
In the other case, it shouldn't be, BECAUSE NO-ONE CAN RAISE THE DEAD. That includes using them as puppets. However, there is a good chance that it is a religion, somewhere.

I think many of the above posts are missing a few obvious points about the tsunami, assuming the one we're talking about is the one in 2004:

First of all, it was made very clear that suffering entered the world through ADAM, not through God.

Why then, would God allow Adam to doom all humanity to live in a self-destructive universe?

Answer: Volition dilemma.

1. To be an all-powerful being of love, there must be objects of affection, so God painted himself into a corner with the sense of a need to create the universe.

2. For there to be objects of affection, there must be beings capable of affection.

3. To have such said being be capable of affection, they must be able to truly mean it.

4. For the being to be able to truly mean it when they love, they must be presented with a choice.

5. To make a choice, they have to be able to choose.

6. To be able to choose, they must be given the option to make alternative choices.

7. Due to the laws of causation, all such choices must have consequences.

8. Due to the mechanics of original sin, since Adam and Eve had no children prior to their fall, the logical fallout curse on Physicalia applied to them, all the animals, and all human flesh as well.

9. The nature of salvation for the soul and creation of a new and perfect body being a whole other topic, this leaves us with the temporal life and the depraved state, where we are free game to the consequences of evil, both in the human heart and in the forces of nature.

10. Therefore, God can decide based on his "greater plan" schematics when to spare us from disaster and when to allow it to hit us with as much wrath as it feels we deserve.

Now, for something a little more down to Earth:

The tsunami of 04 attacked and caused a lot of devastation. However, in that part of the world, there were islands that were predominantly Muslim and islands that were predominantly Christian.

The predominantly Christian ones suffered lots of financial losses, but very little loss of life. The Muslim islands that were realtively religiously tolerant were spared from excessive loss of life.

However, the islands that were huge recruitment centers for al-Queda and many other Jihadist organizations suffered the heaviest loss of life.

Therefore, I honestly believe that the tsunami was not there because God was reckless, powerless, irrelevant, or incompetent; but because He was trying to send a very pointed message to the Jihadists of the world:

"Cut it out. What you do is not my will. Stop killing everyone who's not you. And if you continue, do not keep pretending to do so in my name. Try my patience like this, and all your loved ones are free game for my hand. Your international enemies will do nothing; for I will destroy you myself if you keep pressing your luck."

To this day, I don't think most Jihadists have understood the message. Apparently, most Westerners don't understand it either.

Mercy and Justice must exist in an eternal balance. But on the divine scale, the clay cannot presume to always understand the potter perfectly.

Awesome, it's the "there just HAS to be free will" defense combined with the "God was really only punishing evildoers, collateral damage is totally okay" defense. I should really check back on these forums more often, there's just all kinds of stupid arguments getting tossed around again!

Awesome, it's the "there just HAS to be free will" defense combined with the "God was really only punishing evildoers, collateral damage is totally okay" defense. I should really check back on these forums more often, there's just all kinds of stupid arguments getting tossed around again!

First, what's stupid about evildoers being punished? It's not like it never happens. Second, I never said only. Otherwise, not a single non-Jihadist would have lost anything.

Keep in mind, the first three of the ten plagues in Exodus affected both Israelite and Egyptian camps equally.

Also, what would "playing God" mean if it didn't mean having absolute authority to decide that someone's time has simply come? What promise do we have that we will all be perfectly safe from every possible disaster—None!

Protection of the soul and guranteed safety in hereafter does not equate absolute physical protection in this cursed world of cursed cause-and-effect.

Instead of demanding an explanation for why the tsunami had to be what it had to be, the better question should be:

"Why have I been allowed to live so long?"

If you wanted to get technical, as Shakesphere did in The Merchant of Venice, perfection in divine law could find any number of justifications to obliterate each one of us before we even take our next breath.

Why then, does God allow us to still breathe?

Perhaps one way to put this in perspective lies with fans of The Sims: Why do you allow some of them to live and kill off others without a second thought? And what right have they to an explanation behind your motives?

I can think of a number of times in my life that I should've been dead, but somehow survived. My thought was not: "Why'd you put me in danger?" My thought was: "Why did you allow me to live, when it would have been all too easy to finish me off?"

Regardless of whether or not you can accept my neo-Boethian arguments, it is still easy to see that what we have at the core here is something that goes even deeper than that:

The attitudes to which we subscribe are radically different. We look for something in what we see, and use that as a lens through which we both interpret the same event in radically different ways.

You ask God: "Why did you let some of them die?"

I ask God: "Why did you let anyone live? Why go through all the trouble of guardian angels and all that to spare anyone, when you could have been done with the whole miserable lot in one swipe and come back for the rest of us?"

So, in closing on this argument, I believe we should instead be thankful that we don't see more tsunamis happening all at once and wiping out major cities. Technically speaking, every human civilization deserves it.

Also, the "only wiping out evildoers" thing is misleading.

Q: Why did he protect Israel so much when they were such a pester to him?

A: Because, he wanted Jesus to be born and, do his thing. He was dead-fixed on keeping his promise to Adam. Anything or anyone who dared to threaten the ability of that promise to be kept had to be eliminated immediately, lest every single one of us have to be thrown out as refuse as compensation.

Therefore, when the birth, death, etc. was finished, the new mission became "spread the word as much as possible." So there are a few reasons someone could be a victim and God would allow it.

I'll demonstrate these with male pronouns, but these apply equally to women.

1. The victim is a believer, but is on his last legs. He needs to be "called home" before he is lost forever.

2. The victim is an outsider, and has little or no interest in changing his ways. The victim has voluntarily placed himself outside the umbrella of protection. Therefore, the Devil can do whatever he wants with this individual, including arrange things in the Web of Fate (a.k.a. Wheel of Fortune, Karma, etc.) so that this man meets an untimely demise.

3. The victim is a victim of his own stupidity. (Darwin Award Winner)

4. The victim was a victim of a murder, whose death played a key role in bringing justice to the killer, especially if the killer is a serial killer.

5. The victim is a believer and a martyr, and his death radically alters the attitudes and beliefs of those who killed him or of witnesses.

6. The victim is a devout enemy of God whose sole existence depended on being an obstacle to the salvation of others, and on frustrating God's ability to keep his promises.

7. The victim was a poor steward on the Earth and faced the logical consequences for poor self-management. (E.g., bad health, poor diet, etc.)

8. The victim died of a horrible disease inflicted without the victim being at fault. This is to test both his faith and the faith of other believers. If they cannot trust what they cannot fully understand, then they have no true faith.

9. The victim died of a horrible disease brought on by their own device (e.g., STDs), and must face the logical consequences. (Fits in with 3 and 7.)

So, in closing: The question should never be: "Why are some allowed to die in horrible tragedies?" The real questions should be:

1. Why haven't I died yet?
2. Why was he willing to assume a body and let himself die in a horrible travesty?
3. Why did he seem so convinced that I was worth saving, especially when I know I desire things he despises?